Ciceronian Review

Mug

Mr. McConnell, the National Intelligence Director, gave an interview a day or two ago.  He, of course, defended the surveillance regime. 

At the end of the interview, McConnell cautioned reporter Chris Roberts that he should consider whether enemies of the U.S. could gain from the information he just shared in the interview, Roberts said. McConnell left it to the paper to decide what to publish.

This is nonsense.  If the information should not be disclosed, then McConnell should not have disclosed it.  It is not the job of reporters or editors to figure out what should not be disclosed, it is McConnell's job.  If he can disclose it to a reporter, it should not be secret.  The same sort of mug behavior shows up in the comment that discussion of surveillance entails American deaths.  Where exactly is the evidence for that? 

The interview sounds rather a put-up.  Consider the claim that it takes 200 hours to put together a FISA warrant.  That is not credible. A month and a half of full time work to get one warrant?  The standards for warrants are not that high. 

Good News

THE GOOD NEWS

                David Yazzi

            A friend calls, so I ask him to stop by.
We sip old Scotch, the good stuff, order in,
some Indian—no frills too fine for him
or me, particularly since it's been
                     ages since we made the time.

             Two drinks in, we've caught up on our plans.
I've sleepwalked through the past few years by rote;
he's had a nasty rough patch, quote unquote,
on the home front. So, we commiserate,
                     cupping our lowballs in our hands.

            It's great to see him, good to have a friend
who feels the same as you about his lot—
that, while some grass is greener, your small plot
is crudely arable, and though you're not
                     so young, it's still not quite the end.

             As if remembering then, he spills his news.
Though I was pretty lit, I swear it's true,
it was as if a gold glow filled the room
and shone on him, a sun-shaft piercing through
                    dense clouds, behind which swept long views.

             In that rich light, he looked not like my friend
but some acquaintance brushed by on the train.
Had his good fortune kept me from the same,
I had to wonder, a zero-sum game
                    that gave the night its early end?

             Nothing strange. Our drinks were done, that's all.
We haven't spoken since. By morning, I
couldn't remember half of what the guy
had said, just his good news, my slurred goodbye,
                      the click of the latch, the quiet hall.               

Misspent

Misspent
    A.E Stallings

Because in the time it took
To blink I had mislaid
A sum, I stopped to look,
And this is what I paid:
I spent the shining day
Badly, like a coin
I found along the way
And pocketed to join
The jangle of loose change,
Amounts I never heed
But squander on a range
Of cheap things I don't need,
A day stamped with the face
Of the sun,  a whole day lost,
And no way to replace
The currency it cost.

Unhappy Eating

The Atlantic for September has a review of The Omnivore's Dilemma by B.R. Myers.  Mr. Myers' review is not exactly positive.  It is not at all clear what Myers' complaint is.  Myers thinks the discussion of corn well-written and interesting.  But the rest of the book, he thinks, is terrible.  There are some favorable remarks about McDonalds meals.  Corn production is about as close to factory production of foodstuffs as you can get, down to GMO seed.  Myers likes all that.  And, as I said, thinks well of McDonalds (and its brethren one assumes).  What Myers does not like is people who like food.  The review begins with a lament that gluttony no longer means anything but eating to excess -- lost is the sin of enjoying food too much.  Which seems to be part of the complaint: people who like food shouldn't.   I do not recall the doctrines well enough to know whether it is a sin (Christian) to enjoy food.  No reason to think food is excluded from too great a love of the body, but I have doubts that there is a sin specific to eating food.  Anyway, for Myers, eating the packaged bland is better than eating something tastier.  It is bad, according to Myers, for one to eat a local cheese with local artisanal bread.  Maybe we should all avoid joy -- an interesting line.  There are some doctrines that it is immoral to enjoy sex too.  Maybe a little as a side effect to making babies, but only a little.  Is that the line underlying Myers?

Well, there is, to be in the way of fair, more.  Myers also notes some hypocrisies.  There are those who think that the joy in consumption outweighs all else.  Foie gras (an easy target) comes to mind.  There are those who think there are no moral implications to consumption, which Myers is right to see as vile.  But if Myers wanted to argue for vegetarianism, he would have done better to come out with the argument. 

Myers also seems distraught that the economics of food production are counter to sustainable and local agriculture.  That seems inconsistent to me.  If one of the things wrong with good food is that the consumers are insufficiently sensitive to the conditions of production -- ignore the pain involved in production, ignore the killing of animals, etc. -- then one wonders how greater commitment to factory production of foodstuffs would be an improvement.  Is it that human goods outweigh the goods of other animals?  What is the calculation that leads to factory food production is food but smaller scale productions (which would result in fewer human beings)? 

The review, in the end, seems confused.  There is the easy and cheap mockery of gourmet food and gourmands.  An odd stance for a guy who rights for smarty-pants mags like Atlantic.  (Figure how the production costs for that activity.)

American Pie

Mitt Romney says his sons are serving their county by helping his campaign for president, a widely covered story.  Last night on The Daily Show we discovered that one of their important contributions to the nation was eating cherry pie and strawberry rhubarb pie.  As for myself, I supported our country by eating ice cream last night.  I am not sure what I will do today to support the country -- maybe eat some cookies.

I do not think the problem is that neither Romney nor any of his family have served -- that is common enough now and I do not see why military service would be a qualification.  It is not even that Romney is a chickenhawk, although I think he is.  It is that Romney's version of service covers everything.  His sons serve the country by being real estate developers and helping out dad. . . well who gets left out then?  I serve the country by going to lunch?  What isn't service on Romney's view?

Reagan God

July 25 TLS has a review of Reagan's diaries by Ed Luttwak which, not surprising, is rather favorable to the diaries.  (Not so on the editing of the diaries.)  But it is an odd sort of review.  Luttwak's aim is to vindicate Reagan as political thinker and to refute the image of him as uninterested in facts or details, etc.  Luttwak does this by claiming that Reagan was deeply involved in the details of foreign affairs -- had a firm and detailed grasp of events in El Salvador -- except where he didn't (Iran/Contra).  Welcome to E! for politics I guess.  Iran/Contra was the fault of the CIA.  If it had been competent then McFarland and North would not have had to run the illegal operations or engaged in their other misconduct.  The CIA was bad, but not really the State Department because Haig was running the State department.  (Oh, and Reagan did not know anything about Iran/Contra stuff.)  The whole review is a little on the silly side of things.  Luttwak also holds the interesting view that Taiwan was an important issue for the Soviet Union.  Which makes me wonder if the review is not some subtle joke. 
The whole issue is that way.  A review of political analyses of the Reagen period follows (not available on line) in which we learn that with the fall of the Soviet Union, communism ended.  Apparently the world ends at the Ural mountains, or that sneaky Chinese Communist Party uses the name for advertising only.  Deng was really a banker underneath. 

Old Mitt For Sale

Today's mail brought a solicitation from Mitt Romney to me personally, "as a generous supporter of the Republican Party."  Also I care deeply about "our conservative ideals."  So what is Mitt selling in Zion?  Fiscal issues first -- taxes first of all.  Hold the line on taxes.  A close second is "erosion of America's culture and values", which means gay marriage.  Can't have that.  Also he is a man of "unwavering principles."  I get a surprising number of these requests.  I have never given to the Republican Party.  It has to be the zip code that is the signal for them.  Of course, Zion is rock solid on no gay marriage sort of ickiness, and so that plays in too I suppose,  Utah generally.  The central theme of the letter was, however, not directly political; it was mostly about the 2002 Olympics, which Mitt and company "turned around" and made into a success.  (At least the 2002 Games did not lose money -- the event did little for the state in the end, and was awful for many small businesses and towns.  But the important thing is that Al Queda did not attack the Olympics and it made some money.  Yes, they did think there would be an attack.  Had to lock up most of downtown, and nincompoop security consultants made boatloads of money.  The building wanted all of the vin numbers from all the tenants, and threatened to bar us from the building or garage if not turned over.  Bluffing.  But back to mighty Mitt -- he saved Massachusetts form the Democrats and saved the Olympics from someone or other.  Plus damn those courts.  No mention of the holy underwear, unfortunately.  How conservative this place must be when it does not even pay to sort the mailings. 

Southwick's Struggle

A couple of days ago on VC, J. Adler put up a post arguing that Demoncrats in the Senate ought to confirm the recent Bush judicial nominations because it would be in the long term interests of the judiciary and of Democrats.  Democrats should confirm because that would set a precedent for confirmations which could be applied when there is a Republican Senate and Democratic President, and it would bring a halt to undue politicization of confirmation proceedings.  The comments - which I gave up at about number 54 - quickly wandered off into who started what in confirmation battles.  Adler has been pretty consistent on this subject, criticizing Republicans too on the topic.  But there was a whole in both the argument and in the comments.  There is a structural problem in the proposal -- there is no mechanism by which the convention could arise.  There are lots of obstacles to Adler's approach (tit for tat, immediate politics, etc.)  There is also a kind of structural problem.  Suppose Democrats adopted Adler's recommendation (essentially, deference to the Executive on nominations and consideration of narrow legal competency primarily).  What is the mechanism that gives some assurance of reciprocity when the roles shift?  There is no enforcement mechanism and there is no reason to think persuasion by example will matter at all.  So the proposal appears to be a call for Democratic Senators to confirm nominations when they have no reason to think Republicans will reciprocate when roles change.  Which results in a judiciary reflecting the political views of one wing of one party. 

Oversight

The brouhaha among Sen. Clinton, the Under-Secretary for Defense, and Vice-President Cheney is, like most politics, without any hint of history.  Clinton wants information about planning for Iraq.  The Under-Secretary and the VP think any disclosure of planning to Congress amounts to treason.  Congressional oversight requires access to such information on a timely basis.  Furthermore, Congress has managed such functions for a very long time without much indication of it impairing security.  There were Congressional oversight activities, including hearings, in every US war I can think of.  Certainly Congress got such information during WWII, a rather more pressing affair than the war in Iraq.  Congress exercised oversight functions during the Civil War.  Go back through the list -- it demonstrates both that Congress has an oversight role, and that it could do so without compromising national security.  None of this really matters to the moment's political battles, of course, because facts have so little to do with politics.

I suppose one could look to law, but that too has little influence on the outcome of this sort of dispute.  The Constitution surely provides for Congressional oversight of the sort Clinton invoked.